Scientific Creationism?–by Robert H. Brown

R. H. Brown

The United States public is becoming increasingly aware that there
is no justification for evolutionary dogma to have exclusive domination of the public
schools, whether on the basis of sound science, academic principles, or constitutional
rights. But the opportunity to attain a scientifically sound, academically fair, and
constitionally just treatment of origins in the public schools is placed at hazard by some
creationist literature and by the attitudes of some creationists.
Opponents of a balanced treatment of creationism and evolutionism in
the public schools rightly affirm that the public schools should not foster any uniquely
religious teaching. At all costs the public schools must be preserved from becoming
instruments for religious indoctrination. On the basis of the contention that creationism
is a religious doctrine promoted by only certain segments of the Jewish and Christian
communities, it is effectively argued that creationism has no proper place in public
school curricula, particularly in science instruction.
Abundant examples from the creationist literature indicate that the
motivation for promotion of creationism is often religious, rather than scientific,
philosophical or academic. A recent example is provided by a paper entitled "The
Creationist and Neo-Darwinian Views. . . " by Dennis W. Cheek that appears an pp.
93-110, 134 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly for September 1981. Note
the following excerpts: "The creationist model rests on the premise of the primacy of
Scripture as the absolute standard in all matters of life and conduct" (p. 95).
"The creationist model also postulates the occurrence in the earth's recent past of a
global flood as recorded in Genesis" (p. 96). ". . . the creation model
postulates a youthful earth, and thus would necessitate a complete rewriting of earth
history from a creationist perspective" (p. 96). Efforts to achieve an appropriate
treatment of origins in the public schools would have been better served if the author of
these statements had properly qualified his terms by saying "Biblical creation(ist)
model, " for the salient idea in each of these statements is derived from the Bible
and is not a natural product of scientific observation or inductive reasoning from such
observation.
Creation by a superior intelligence is a valid scientific and
philosophical concept  just as valid as the concept that all current features of the
universe may be accounted for by the random, undirected, natural behavior of eternally
existent matter-energy. With equal philosophical justification, one can base his cosmogony
on an intelligence with the capability for creating the universe, or on mindless
matter-energy with the inherent property of evolving the universe. Reasoning based on
principles derived from the Second Law of thermodynamics and on information theory, and
also the conclusions from chemical thermodynamics, probabilities of molecular structure,
design at all levels of the universe, molecular biology, genetics, and some aspects of
paleontology clearly favor the creation account.
Creationism can be treated on a basis that is neutral with respect to
religion, including religion based on the Judaeo-Christian scriptures. Such treatment of
creationism belongs in the public schools if science is to be taught soundly, in a climate
of academic freedom and fairness, and with proper regard for constitutional guarantees.
Such creationism may be identified as Neutral Scientific Creationism. Neutral Scientific
Creationism operates independent of religious concepts and traditions. It may involve
hypothesis and deduction, but it places principal emphasis on inductive logic. Individuals
who follow this approach to creationism see in the available data abundant evidence for a
designer.
Creationism that derives its basic ideas from the Hebrew-Christian
scriptures, and then uses science to further develop those ideas, is Biblical creationism,
a subcategory of Apologetic Scientific Creationism. In contrast with Neutral Scientific
Creationism, the emphasis of Apologetic Scientific Creationism is on deductive reasoning.
It begins with a religion-based theory and uses that theory as an aid in interpreting
scientific data. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate to include Apologetic
Scientific Creationism in a science course offered by a public school that serves a
pluralistic constituency. A public school social studies course that aims to acquaint
students with the history of human thought and develop an understanding of the
contemporary culture could appropriately survey Apologetic Scientific Creationism.
Having pointed out a distinction that I am convinced should be made
with respect to teaching creationism in public schools, I should express an additional
conviction, which is that Apologetic Scientific Creationism, when functioning on a
rigorous basis of sound scientific principles and methods, can be a superior instrument
for arriving at truth. This superiority is elucidated by contrasting two reconstructions
of an event (such as an automobile accident, an explosion, a bank robbery, the demise of
dinosaurs, or the origin of life, e.g.), one based on only after-the-event consequences,
and the other based on both after-the-event consequences and the testimony of reliable
eyewitnesses. The individual who believes that the narratives of the Hebrew-Christian
scriptures are reliable eyewitness accounts can have confidence that these accounts are
helpful in correctly interpreting data that pertain to earth history.
Neither the discredit that has resulted from efforts to force data in
an unscientific manner to support a religious viewpoint nor the misidentification of
creationism as a purely religious concept should be allowed to obscure a sound approach to
scientific creationism.